Posted on 02/03/2005 9:04:20 AM PST by Publius
BUMP to finish reading in the morning.
DEO VENDICE
Internally, the two parties are very different. The Democrats function like a federation of state parties while the Republicans have always been a top-down organization. This gives the Democrats an edge when they don't control the Executive. Republicans, without the Executive, seem lost. They need a leader to snap them to attention and send them marching in step.
This is sheer snap, right-on-the-target, in-perfect-lens analysis. Short, brutish, and correct.
It is further made clear in how libbies (Dems) approach the issue of WOT and the UN/ICC. And why they are hysterical: "we need everyone to agree to this war". A "multi-lateral" approach; and why they belittle the unilateral. This is also exemplifed in Dem current attempts at "reinvention" -- with one branch of their Coalition of Whining doing the hard left tact while attempting to posture another branch, "The Whining Apparatus", composed of Kerry, Hillary, Billy, as "more moderate". Then there's the hard right within dem party, Lieberman, Miller... and the left wing and "moderates" are beating the tar out of Lieberman, Miller, and because... I think, ultimately, that Dems are trying for a "top down approach" since it seems to have worked so well for the Republicans. What it continues to do, IMHO, is confuse the various branches within the Coalition of the Whining who for soooo many years have been engrained with a different approach and are resenting the "top down" methodology/strategy.
A Democrat will tell you that Al Gore won the national popular vote and the vote in Florida. Bush was selected illegally by a partisan US Supreme Court when his father called in some IOU’s. The election was stolen, plain and simple. Bush lost and took up residence in Al Gore’s big white house.
Dare we mention also that mere days after Mr. Al's flip-flop in re election results and "conceding", Mr. Al and Mz. Hillary published el numerous articles calling for the elimination of the electoral vote. They were pretty desperate to have Al win BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Jesse Jackson already had his "protest at these cities" website up.
The Democratic Party had played a key role in the creation of the United Nations
Off the top of my head: created in 1947 in SAN FRANCISCO.
I like your alliteration of "UNeesians". Very appropro.
Your bulleted points beneath this para:
In 2004, the Democrats nominated a New Englander who was deep in his party’s mainstream but was out of step with the rest of the country. In “reporting for duty”, John Kerry hoped to elide his party’s ideological marginalization, but since his defeat the rest of the party has stridently spoken out, raising disturbing questions:
Shows the Dems knew already they had lost the party core "unifying themes" and ergo put out a Facilitator (Kerry), and not a genuine candidate, in attempts to keep the "dialogue" going or even to start.
Soon there will be at least three parties on the left: the Green Party, the Labor Party and the Reparations Party
Yes, the "groups" within the Coalition of the Whining are brawling over the financial pittances, and who gets center stage. No, I don't mind watching this. It's long overdue. I think, often, here on FR, we see some "conservatives" trying at the UNeesian approach; railing that their very own coalition of whatever should be dictating to the GOP. And that when FReepers support the GOP, they are called "Bushbots". Amuses me everytime I see it in post.
Thank you for referring me to what I consider a very good synopsis of the winds that are blowing. Please do ping me, if and when you author another.
Bookmarked.
I hadn't noticed that! Very perceptive. First, Clinton sells out his party to the Grifters of K Street to emulate the Republican fundraising apparatus, and now they are opting for a top-down governing model. This won't sell within the party no matter who gets to play the top dog.
...the Dems knew already they had lost the party core "unifying themes" and ergo put out a Facilitator (Kerry), and not a genuine candidate, in attempts to keep the "dialogue" going or even to start.
Again very perceptive. I merely saw Kerry as another representative of New England, that graveyard of American politics. You've delved deeper.
...the "groups" within the Coalition of the Whining are brawling over the financial pittances, and who gets center stage.
Follow the money. Control of the party's fundraising apparatus is the one critical element of this whole mess.
It makes me want to erect a grandstand and sell tickets for the show.
Excellent reasoning, eloquently presented.
It WILL sell but only to those who stand a chance of getting "PAID". LOL. It's part of the whole socialist (entitlement) mindset. It's "built in". The rank and file will be told it's about "principle". I ask you: "What principles do the Dems have"? "By any means necessary"? lol. The rank and file will only approve as long as the "entitlements" grow, and they get paid "that way".
Follow the money. Control of the party's fundraising apparatus is the one critical element of this whole mess.
You are sooo right.
It makes me want to erect a grandstand and sell tickets for the show.
lol. I'd like to buy one, thank you!
Bookmarked for future beer payoffs.
ping
God Bless You. I couldn't have said it better.
All things in moderation and yes that includes Free Trade.
Zach, powerful men fool around. Powerful men cheat on their wives. Powerful men have always had mistresses, courtesans, geishas, slave girls, concubines, right of the first night, wive's handmaidens, etc. In a country with a 50% divorce rate infidelity shocks no one.
Another point that I wish Publius had mentioned is that I think the American people associate Watergate with the Time of Troubles of weak presidents in the second half of the 70's during which the Senate basically ran the country. How much of the politics of the 70's turned around Senate fights ? Salt II, ERA, Panama Canal Treaty, etc. That is why the American people protected Reagan over Iran-Contra and Clinton over impeachment. The American people did not want a crippled presidency over a bit of tail.
The Democrats function like a federation of state parties while the Republicans have always been a top-down organization.
This is way too broad a claim to let go without some evidence. Frankly I think the opposite is true of the current Republican and Democrat parties. The power comes from the grass roots organizations in the Republican party, while the Democrats are owned, body and soul, by the national orgnizations such as the recent MOVE ON and the more traditional NEA.
The Democratic Party had played a key role in the creation of the United Nations, and there was a strong belief that being a responsible player on the world stage meant not engaging in unilateral action, but working through the UN to gain the support of world opinion. This is the origin of the “global test”. Had not Jack Kennedy gone to the UN first during the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Yes, but Bill Clinton had destroyed this entire premise with the war in Bosnia. No UN blessing at all. they didn't even try.
With most of our traditional European allies opposing regime change in Iraq, Democrats were split on whether to authorize an invasion. The initial success of that invasion coupled with the guerilla war that followed furthered splits in the party. The perception of lukewarm support of the war effort on the part of Democrats led to losses in the election of 2002, and the party’s left-wing nominating electorate was on the warpath for peace.
The timeline is all wrong for this statement without explanation. I think I know what you're trying to say, but the obvious errors over cause/effect render this point invalid.
I really like the rest of piece and the "Uneesian" tag is very good. Unfortunately it is awkward and I don't think it will catch on. There must be something that carries the same idea and is easier to stomach? Internationalists doesn't carry the right connotations, while UN hegemonist carries too much ChiCom connotation. Turtle Bay loyalist? Turtle Bay patriot? It would make for some lovely cartoons. Ah well, I'll keep trying.
The Democratic Party will splinter like the Whigs. Soon there will be at least three parties on the left: the Green Party, the Labor Party and the Reparations Party.
I agree with the idea that they will splinter, but I'm not sure of your designations. The DLC will remain as a power. I don't think they fit any of your descriptions. Where are they, the Labor Party? I think the "Reparations Party" will fail on the issues of same sex marriage and anti-Christian bias that you mention. The reparations movement is too tied with the radical left and they are too tied to the gay agenda to tolerate the traditional Christian core of the black and hispanic communities. I watch for a new "Minority Conservatives" movement to rise up and challenge the traditional country club niche in the Republican Party instead, pushing them over to join their banker friends from Goldman Sachs. Think about it. Most country club types are dims nowadays and have been for some time.. The reparation types will end up a very small fringe group, probably subsumed into the radical end of the Greens.
Again, a very good essay. I don't necessarily think you are wrong about any of the things I have chosen to pick at, but I do think you need to provide more support for your assertions, as stated, if you're going to take these particular positions. However, the overall point is right on.
Pontificating from on high, a Happy New Year to you (that's a joke - the pontificating part, not the "Happy New Year")
bttt
Nice job, Publius! I see the RATs going over to being controlled soon to a new bunch of radical liberals like Soros and Moveon plus the Hollyweirds. That should terminate the party. Where will that leave Hitlery?
bttt
I really think that since the McGovernites took over the party, with their weak on defense and social liberalism (amnesty and acid) they've been going down hill with the occasional uptick.
PING!!
That is the 64 million dollar question.
By following Bill's advice, Hillary has positioned herself in the sensible center, which is exactly the right position for winning elections in a two-party race. But first you have to win the nomination, and that requires paying obeisance to the Hard Left. That's the kiss of death.
While the DLC folks behind Hillary work with her as a centrist, the Hard Left believes that in her heart of hearts, she's a Stalinist like them. (Maybe she is and maybe she ain't.) She can support the war, and she'll be forgiven because she is all things to all Democrats. But right now, thanks to Dr. Dean, the Hard Left controls the party bureaucracy, and the Deaniacs (and their foreign backers) control the money spigot. At some point Hillary is going to have to play ball with them, or their support will go to Gore or Kerry.
But once she plays ball, she walks away from the center. Tough conundrum, isn't it?
Fantastic...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.